§ 36A.006.Procedure for Recognition of Foreign-Country Judgment

Two procedural routes, matching the two situations in which recognition arises.

If recognition is sought as an original matter, the issue may be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment.

That is the creditor’s route, and it differs sharply from the sister-state chapter. There, a judgment is filed with a clerk; here, an action must be brought and recognition established.

The difference follows from what is being asked. Recognition can be refused on ten separate grounds, so there must be a proceeding in which the question can be litigated.

If recognition is sought in a pending action, the issue may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.

The affirmative defense is the most consequential of the three, and it is where a judgment denying recovery does its work.

Picture the situation. A claimant sued abroad, lost, and has now sued in Texas on the same claim. The defendant pleads the foreign judgment as an affirmative defense; if it is recognized, it is conclusive between the parties and the Texas action is over.

The counterclaim and cross-claim routes serve the creditor already in litigation, who can establish the judgment in the case at hand rather than filing separately.

Raising recognition defensively has a practical advantage worth noting. The limitations provision governs an action to recognize a judgment, and a defence raised in a case someone else brought is not that.

The section is procedural only. Whichever route is used, the standards, the burden allocation and the effect of recognition are the same.